Posts

FFI FATCA Requirements: Introduction | FATCA Tax Lawyer & Attorney

Since July 1, 2014, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (“FATCA”) has imposed a heavy compliance burden on Foreign Financial Institutions (“FFIs”). Many of these FFIs have struggled with developing a good understanding of their new FATCA requirements even to this day. In this brief essay, I want to provide a general overview of these FFI FATCA requirements so that readers can begin to develop an understanding of FATCA.

FFI FATCA Requirements: Background Information

FATCA was enacted into law in 2010. The most important idea behind the new law was to combat US tax noncompliance of US taxpayers with foreign financial assets.

There are several important parts of FATCA, but the most important one of them was forcing FFIs to identify US owners of foreign financial assets, collect certain information about them and share it with the IRS. Failure to do so meant facing a FATCA penalty in the form of a 30% withholding tax on the gross amount of all transactions with a noncompliant FFI. In essence, FATCA turned FFIs around the world into free IRS informants.

FFI FATCA Requirements: Three Categories

What precisely does FATCA require FFIs to do in order to be FATCA-compliant? If we look broadly at the FFI FATCA requirements, we can group all of these requirements into three broad categories. Each of these categories consists of a myriad of smaller but still fairly complex FATCA compliance requirements and requires a deep understanding of new FATCA terms.

The first and most important category of FATCA requirements is to collect the required due diligence information concerning all account holders, investors and payees. “Collecting” here means obtaining the required due diligence information and documentation. In other words, FATCA has to be part of an FFI’s “Know Your Client” (“KYC”) procedures.

Additionally, these new due diligence requirements apply not only to new customers, but also to pre-existing account holders. Pre-existing account holders are the account holders who already had accounts with an FFI as of the time FATCA was implemented (i.e. July 1, 2014) or sometimes a different date.

The second requirement is to report to the IRS three categories of persons: (a) all US account holders; (b) recalcitrant account holders; and © non-participating (i.e. FATCA-noncompliant) FFIs. This means that, under FATCA, FFIs must turn over to the IRS the identifying information concerning accounts held by US persons as well as point out the “bad apples” who refuse to comply with FATCA.

Recalcitrant account holders is a fairly complex FATCA term. In its most basic form, it refers to an account holder who does not supply the required FATCA information and who does not fall under any types of a waiver. In a future article, I will provide a more detailed description of this term, but, at this point, I would like to refer the readers to Treas Reg § 1.1471-5(g)(2).

Finally, the FFIs are charged with the requirement to coordinate FATCA withholding as necessary. In other words, the FFIs are required to impose FATCA noncompliance penalties on any FATCA non-compliant FFI, thereby turning FATCA in a worldwide self-enforcing system from which no FFI can escape.

FFI FATCA Requirements Are Interconnected

Needless to say that all three of these FFI FATCA requirements are deeply related to each other. For example, the due diligence requirement is essential to an FFI’s ability to properly comply with its FATCA reporting and withholding obligations. It is important to keep this connection between different FFI FATCA Requirements in mind while building an effective FATCA compliance system.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office to Find Out More About Your FFI FATCA Requirements

Sherayzen Law Office is a US international tax law firm that specializes in US international tax compliance, including FATCA compliance. We also help FFIs develop an effective FATCA compliance program as well as analyze existing FATCA compliance programs.

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

US Taxpayers with Lombard Odier Bank Accounts At Risk | OVDP News

On July 31, 2018, the US Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that it signed an Addendum to a non-prosecution agreement with Bank Lombard Odier & Co., Ltd. (“Lombard Odier). The Addendum requires Lombard Odier to disclose additional 88 accounts; in other words, US taxpayers who own these additional Lombard Odier bank accounts are now at a high risk of a criminal prosecution by the IRS.

Lombard Odier Bank Accounts: Background Information on the Swiss Bank Program and Original Non-Prosecution Agreement

The new Addendum to the non-prosecution agreement was signed by Lombard Odier as part of the Swiss Bank Program that was created by the DOJ on August 29, 2013. The Swiss Bank Program is basically a voluntary disclosure program for Swiss banks, which allows the banks to avoid potential criminal prosecution for helping US taxpayers evade US tax laws (the so-called Category 2 banks). As part of their voluntary disclosure, the participating banks were required, among other things, to provide all of the required information concerning bank accounts owned (directly or indirectly) by US taxpayers. The information was provided on an account-by-account basis, rather than per taxpayer.

Overall, the DOJ executed non-prosecution agreements with 80 banks between March of 2015 and January of 2016, collecting $1.36 billion in penalties. Lombard Odier signed the original non-prosecution agreement on December 31, 2015, and paid $99 million in penalties.

Addendum to the Original Agreement Concerning Additional 88 Lombard Odier Bank Accounts

It appears that, when the original non-prosecution agreement was signed, Lombard Odier failed to account for certain additional accounts owned by US persons. The bank later realized its mistake and disclosed it to the DOJ.

As a result of this disclosure, the July 31, 2018 Addendum to the original non-prosecution agreement was signed. Under the Addendum, Lombard Odier will pay the additional sum of $5,300,000 and disclose 88 additional Lombard Odier bank accounts owned by US persons.

Impact of the Addendum on US Taxpayers With Undisclosed Lombard Odier Bank Accounts

The Addendum means that the IRS now has knowledge of additional 88 Lombard Odier bank accounts that were not previously disclosed. US owners of these accounts are now at a risk of willful FBAR penalties and potential criminal prosecution if they have not yet entered into an IRS voluntary disclosure program. A quiet disclosure of these accounts will not suffice to protect these taxpayers against the IRS criminal prosecution.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Help With the Disclosure of Your Lombard Odier Bank Accounts and Any Other Foreign Bank Accounts

If you are the owner of any of the 88 Lombard Odier bank account or if you have other undisclosed foreign bank accounts, contact the experienced legal team of Sherayzen Law Office. We have helped hundreds of US taxpayers around the world to bring their undisclosed foreign assets, including foreign bank and financial accounts, into full compliance with the US tax laws. We can help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Cyprus Tax Amnesty Extended | FATCA Lawyer & Attorney

For the second time now, the Cyprus Tax Amnesty has been extended. Let’s discuss in more detail the new deadline and the terms of the Cyprus Tax Amnesty.

Cyprus Tax Amnesty: Deadline Extensions

The original deadline for the Scheme for the Settlement of Overdue Taxes (the official name of the Cyprus Tax Amnesty) was October 3, 2017. The deadline, however, was extended for the first time to January 3, 2018. In early January of 2018, the deadline was further extended to the current deadline of July 3, 2018. Thus, the more recent extension gives Cyprus taxpayers another six months to bring their tax affairs in full compliance with Cyprus tax law.

Main Terms of the Cyprus Tax Amnesty

The Cyprus Tax Amnesty allows “qualifying applicants” to pay off their tax liabilities for prior years with up to 95% reduction in the interest and penalties that otherwise would have been or have already been imposed by the Cyprus tax authorities. The precise percentage of the reduction of interest and penalties depends on the number of monthly installment payments chosen by the taxpayer (i.e. if you pay off everything in full immediately, you get the full benefit of the 95% reduction in interest and penalties).

The Cyprus Tax Amnesty encompasses all outstanding tax liabilities that were incurred in the tax years up to and including 2015. The Amnesty also covers a great variety of taxes: income tax, capital gains tax, VAT, property tax, stamp duties, inheritance tax and certain special fees.

Cyprus Tax Amnesty: Qualifying Taxpayers

Since the main purpose of the Amnesty is to bring Cyprus taxpayers into full and ongoing compliance with Cyprus tax law, the emphasis is placed on assuring current compliance. This is done through the definition of “qualifying taxpayers” who are the only taxpayers eligible to participate in the Cyprus Tax Amnesty.

Qualifying taxpayers are defined as taxpayers who have been in full tax compliance from the tax year 2016 onwards – i.e. these taxpayers must have filed all of their Cyprus tax returns and paid all of their Cyprus tax liabilities for the tax year 2016 and all of the following tax years.

Cyprus Tax Amnesty is Part of a Trend Amplified by the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program

The Cyprus Tax Amnesty is just one more example of the tax amnesty programs which have proliferated around the world in the recent years. This trend was greatly strengthened and really amplified to its current status by the establishment of the 2009 IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (“2009 OVDP”). The 2009 OVDP, 2011 OVDI and 2012/2014 OVDPs together with enactment of FATCA have drawn the attention around the world and many countries began to imitate the successes of these US initiatives.

Sherayzen Law Office has helped clients deal with each of these major IRS voluntary disclosure programs as well as other voluntary disclosure options (like the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures and the Reasonable Cause Disclosures). A voluntary disclosure program presents wonderful opportunities to taxpayers to settle their past tax noncompliance. This is why we sympathize with the Cyprus Tax Amnesty and see it as a positive development in the international tax law.

Specified Domestic Entity: Closely-Held Test | 8938 Lawyer & Attorney

In a previous article, I introduced the key term of the Specified Domestic Entity (“SDE”) Definition for corporations and partnerships that may be required to file FATCA Form 8938: “formed or availed of”. At that point, I stated that this term required that a business entity satisfies two legal tests. One of these tests is a Closely-Held Test.

Closely-Held Test: Background Information

Starting tax year 2016, certain business entities and trusts that are classified as SDEs may be required to file Form 8938 with their US tax returns. Treas. Reg. §1.6038D-6(a) states that “a specified domestic entity is a domestic corporation, a domestic partnership, or a trust described in IRC Section 7701(a)(30)(E), if such corporation, partnership, or trust is formed or availed of for purposes of holding, directly or indirectly, specified foreign financial assets.”

In a previous article, I discussed the fact that “formed or availed of” is a term of art which has no relationship to the actual finding of intent. Rather, in the context of corporations and partnerships, the “formed or availed of” requirement is satisfied if two legal tests are met. One of these tests is a Closely-Held Test, which is the subject of this article.

Closely-Held Test: General Requirements

In order to meet the closely-held test, a corporation or partnership must be closely held by a specified individual. There are two separate parts of this test that need to be analyzed: (a) who is considered to be a specified individual, and (b) what percentage of ownership meets the “closely held” requirement.

Closely-Held Test: Specified Individual

In another article, I already defined the concept of a Specified Individual. It is, however, worth re-stating the definition here again for convenience purposes. Treas. Reg. §1.6038D-1(a)(2) defines Specified individual as anyone who is: (I) US citizen; (ii) resident alien of the United States for any portion of the taxable year; (iii) nonresident alien for whom an election under 26 U.S.C. §6013(g) or (h) is in effect; or (iv) nonresident alien who is a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico or a section 931 possession.

Closely-Held Test: Ownership Percentage for Corporations and Partnerships

The ownership requirement of the Closely-Held Test is explained in Treas. Reg. §1.6038D-6(b)(2) with respect to both, corporations and partnerships. A domestic corporation is considered to be “closely held” if “at least 80 percent of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock of the corporation entitled to vote, or at least 80 percent of the total value of the stock of the corporation, is owned, directly, indirectly, or constructively, by a specified individual on the last day of the corporation’s taxable year.” Treas. Reg. §1.6038D-6(b)(2)(I).

A domestic partnership is “closely held” if “at least 80 percent of the capital or profits interest in the partnership is held, directly, indirectly, or constructively, by a specified individual on the last day of the partnership’s taxable year.” Treas. Reg. §1.6038D-6(b)(2)(ii).

It is important to emphasize that the 80% threshold is met not only through direct ownership, but also through indirect and constructive ownership. So, one must closely look at the attribution rules of 26 U.S.C. §267 to determine whether the Closely-Held Test is met. Moreover, the constructive ownership rules for the purposes of the Closely-Held Test also contain an additional provision for the addition of spouses of individual family members.

Contact Sherayzen Law Office for Experienced Help with US International Tax Compliance Requirements for Corporations and Partnerships

If you are a minority or a majority owner of a corporation or partnership that either operates outside of the United States or has foreign assets, contact Sherayzen Law Office for professional help with US international tax compliance requirements. Our firm specializes in the are of US international tax law. We can Help You!

Contact Us Today to Schedule Your Confidential Consultation!

Guam & American Samoa Are Non-Cooperative Tax Jurisdictions | News

On December 5, 2017, the European Union (the EU) Council published its list of the non-EU non-cooperative tax jurisdictions. The list included American Samoa and Guam unleashing strenuous objections from the United States.

Full List of Non-Cooperative Tax Jurisdictions

A total of seventeen countries made it to the list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions: American Samoa, Bahrain, Barbados, Grenada, Guam, Korea (Republic of), Macao SAR, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Namibia, Palau, Panama, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia and United Arab Emirates.

Criteria for Inclusion in the List of Non-Cooperative Tax Jurisdictions

The list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions was formed out of tax jurisdictions that failed to meet three criteria at the same time: transparency, fair taxation and the implementation of anti-base-erosion and profit-shifting measures.

The EU Reasoning for Including American Samoa and Guam on the List of Non-Cooperative Tax Jurisdictions

The EU reasoning for including American Samoa and Guam on the list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions is a peculiar one because it does not seem to care about the fact that both jurisdictions are only US territories with no authority to separately sign international tax commitments (i.e. everything is done through the United States).

In particular, the EU Council specifically criticized American Samoa and Guam for three failures. First, American Samoa and Guam did not implement the automatic information exchange of financial information. Second, both jurisdictions did not sign the OECD Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters. Finally, neither American Samoa nor Guam followed the EU’s BEPS minimum standards.

US Objections to the Inclusion of Its Territories on the List of Non-Cooperative Tax Jurisdictions

In his letter to the Council of the European Union, the Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin strenuously objected to the inclusion of American Samoa and Guam on the list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions. The Treasury Secretary set forth the following reasons.

First, he objected to the publication of the list per se as being “duplicative” of the efforts at the G-20 and OECD level.

Second and most important, Mr. Mnuchin stated that the EU reasoning does not make sense, because American Samoa and Guam “participate in the international community through the United States”. The fact that the United States agreed to implement BEPS minimum standards and the tax transparency standards should be considered as the agreement of American Samoa and Guam to do the same. In other words, he argued that American Samoa, Guam and the Untied States should be considered as one whole legal framework.

Based on this reasoning, Mr. Mnuchin urged the EU to immediately remove American Samoa and Guam from its list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions. It should be noted that several other jurisdictions also rejected their inclusion on the list.

Sherayzen Law Office will continue to watch for any new developments with respect to this issue.